Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8216706" data-attributes="member: 12731">I thought I was discussing the different needs of different (sub-)genres.I fully understand you personally like massive/insta/random death (I'll call it MIRD from now on <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) in your campaigns. But that has (should have?) nothing to do with the publication of a S&S-themed sourcebook. As an author, I would save such a rule for a genre actually benefiting from it.The basis of this argument is this: MARD is appropriate for any game where combat is not a desired state, where combat is interpreted to mean a failure on some level (whether of intrigue, subterfuge, or just planning). WFRP and Game of Thrones are good examples of this "gritty" fantasy.Sword & Sorcery is nothing like that. Solving challenges with your sword is expected. Sure Conan & Co may avoid combat when it would be stupid or suicidal, but just as often he's forced into exactly stupid and suicidal combats - and he still prevails.In this regard, it shares the DNA with regular D&D. Sure intrigue, subterfuge and planning can play a large role in regular D&D too, and for many gamers play a huge role. But the core assumption in D&D is that heroes will have many combats and that they will like it.Put otherwise, in D&D combat is not a punishment, it is a reward (if not for the characters, definitely the players). The whole game is focused on providing exciting fun combat, and rewarding its participants (fun and challenge for the players; experience and loot for the characters).If your outlook on S&S is different here (and more in line with WFRP or GoT) then, and only then, is the inclusion of MIRD rules appropriate. But the pushback you are experiencing (from me and others) should be interpreted as you not communicating this (and I don't mean here on the forums, but in the Player's Guide itself), at least not so clearly that I have gotten the message.The pushback is because currently you come across as offering your favorite generic D&D houserules in a supplement with different needs.I hope you see my point. I'm not dead set against you adding various rules; I just don't see the genre-specific justification, and I feel a supplement like your is better off when kept lean, slim and to the point <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Best Regards,Zapp</blockquote>

Verification